In a dramatic and still-unfolding saga at the crossroads of legacy and law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided to extend the suspension of 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman—refusing to yield even in the face of growing controversy over the treatment of one of its own.
Newman, a legal stalwart appointed by Ronald Reagan back in 1984, has long been revered for her independent voice and fierce dissents in intellectual property cases. But now, instead of issuing opinions from the bench, she finds herself at the center of a judicial tug-of-war over whether she remains mentally and physically fit to serve.
The court’s committee insists she hasn’t complied with requests to undergo a complete neuropsychological evaluation. Reports submitted by Newman’s own doctors, they say, don’t cut it. In their eyes, only the full battery of tests will determine whether she’s still up to the job.
Her legal team, however, sees this as a predetermined outcome in search of a justification. Attorney Greg Dolin didn’t mince words, calling the committee’s decision “laughable” and accusing it of rushing to judgment without seriously engaging with their evidence—including assessments from multiple neurologists who vouch for her cognitive soundness.
The court’s response? Silence. A spokesperson declined to comment.
This latest ruling marks another chapter in a battle that has stretched beyond the courtroom. Newman has already sued the judicial council over her initial suspension. Though her case was tossed out last year, a federal appeals court is currently reviewing whether it deserves a second chance.
Despite her age, Newman has refused to take senior status—a semi-retirement option often chosen by federal judges. Instead, she continues to push back against what she sees as a forced sidelining, asserting that concerns over her memory lapses and fainting spells are exaggerated or misconstrued.
The Federal Circuit, however, doubled down Monday, noting what it described as inconsistencies in her medical reports and concerns within her records. The verdict from the bench was unambiguous: the ordered tests are not optional—they’re essential.
Whether this is a legitimate inquiry into judicial competency or an institutional overreach dressed as concern, one thing is clear—Pauline Newman isn’t stepping down quietly.
